ADVERTISEMENT

Donald Trump

It is going to be interesting to see what happens. I read a story, think it was on realclearpolitics or yahoo, that a poll released Monday, that was tabulated Thursday thru Sunday, still had Trump in the lead with 24% of the vote. That said the pollster also stated that Trump had been polling about 28-30% until Saturday evening. If that is accurate, that 4-6% quick of a drop, with one day of a 4 day poll being responsible for it after his remark, his end could be quicker than we all think.


Trump now has double digit leads in three separate polls.

If this trend continues after the Fox "debate" (how do you have anything resembling a debate with that many people on the stage?), many here will have to re-think their positions on whether or not Trump has a chance.
 
Trump now has double digit leads in three separate polls.

If this trend continues after the Fox "debate" (how do you have anything resembling a debate with that many people on the stage?), many here will have to re-think their positions on whether or not Trump has a chance.

I still don't think he wins. I absolutely think he lasts longer than some folks think. And I absolutely think he does lasting damage to the GOP brand. Over a quarter of all Hispanics in a recent poll think the whole republican party thinks like Trump. The longer he's running in the lead, the more Hispanics are going to think the GOP must be cool with what he's selling. I know what passes for adults in the party hope he will stumble soon, but he just says what they say, just like two notches more inappropes.
 
I still don't think he wins. I absolutely think he lasts longer than some folks think. And I absolutely think he does lasting damage to the GOP brand. Over a quarter of all Hispanics in a recent poll think the whole republican party thinks like Trump. The longer he's running in the lead, the more Hispanics are going to think the GOP must be cool with what he's selling. I know what passes for adults in the party hope he will stumble soon, but he just says what they say, just like two notches more inappropes.

What % chance would you have given Trump to win the nomination when you started this thread, and what % would you give him now? I think Bush has the best shot, but Walker & Trump are right there. I may even give an edge to Trump over Walker.

If he continues to lead, he's going to have to be taken seriously, and how he responds to increased scrutiny may determine when/if he loses traction with (primary) voters. He can't continue through the entire primary by attacking everyone all the time.
 
What % chance would you have given Trump to win the nomination when you started this thread, and what % would you give him now? I think Bush has the best shot, but Walker & Trump are right there. I may even give an edge to Trump over Walker.

If he continues to lead, he's going to have to be taken seriously, and how he responds to increased scrutiny may determine when/if he loses traction with (primary) voters. He can't continue through the entire primary by attacking everyone all the time.

zero and zero. I just don't see how he actually gets enough votes to win. It's certainly possible as long as the clown car has 17 members in it that he can lead, but sooner or later, one or two folks will rise above, and it will be one on one, or two on one, and at that point, Trump can't really rise above 20 percent IMO.

His only shot would be if the field remains widely dispersed with no one emerging, but I just can't see that happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
zero and zero. I just don't see how he actually gets enough votes to win. It's certainly possible as long as the clown car has 17 members in it that he can lead, but sooner or later, one or two folks will rise above, and it will be one on one, or two on one, and at that point, Trump can't really rise above 20 percent IMO.

His only shot would be if the field remains widely dispersed with no one emerging, but I just can't see that happening.

That is really Trump's only shot in the primary-if everyone stay in the field and 25-35% wins it. Actually agree with you.

Do not see that happening either. As people fall out of the race, expect Bush/Walker(as of now) to overcome Trump. Why? Trump is largely getting the vote of the people that are tired of the same ol same ol in DC, and like the fact he is always in the news.. However, the rest of the voters minus the voters that support Fiorina, Carson and/or Rand are party voters. Expect all or most of them to return to Bush or Walker when they drop out of race. Add those numbers up and that is over 50%.

Anyway, not sure there is negative carryover from Trump or where you see it. Walker and Bush especially are looking pretty good versus Clinton lately. Bush, in swing states on the east coast is doing really well with Hispanics. keep in mind Republicans do not need to win the Hispanic vote nationally. They simply need to not lose as bad as Romney did in 2012, and be solid in a few states.
 
I'll amend/backtrack slightly. A new Monmouth poll just came out that said Trumps fav/unfav among Republican primary voters (likely) is 52/35 favorable.

Obviously, if that holds, he has more than a zero chance of winning the nomination. I don't think it will hold, but it has risen from 20/55 fav/unfav to what it is now in only 2 months. That's crazy.

His overall Favs/Unfavs aren't very good, but among likely republican primary voters, for now, it's apparently leading the pack.
 
Donald Trump is the face of the Republican Party.

Fact.

So much so that he was uninvited to conservative event in the SE. Someone who supports(ed) single payer and donated heavily to Clinton is anything but conservative and/or Republican. While right now he has the 'it factor' and is benefitting from a lot of free news/tv coverage like Obama did, I do not think true independents/right/conservatives take the bait like what happened with Obama. I might be wrong but hope not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
So much so that he was uninvited to conservative event in the SE. Someone who supports(ed) single payer and donated heavily to Clinton is anything but conservative and/or Republican. While right now he has the 'it factor' and is benefitting from a lot of free news/tv coverage like Obama did, I do not think true independents/right/conservatives take the bait like what happened with Obama. I might be wrong but hope not.

He wasn't "uninvited" because he wasn't "conservative" enough. He was uninvited because of comments he made about a woman - even though the host of the event has made equally disparaging comments.

The GOP is doing what it can to get rid of him, Fox News included. The Frank Luntz thing after the debate was laughable. They're trying their hardest. The funny thing is that Trump still acts like a moron and they can't get rid of him.
 
He wasn't "uninvited" because he wasn't "conservative" enough. He was uninvited because of comments he made about a woman - even though the host of the event has made equally disparaging comments.

The GOP is doing what it can to get rid of him, Fox News included. The Frank Luntz thing after the debate was laughable. They're trying their hardest. The funny thing is that Trump still acts like a moron and they can't get rid of him.

It is interesting. I think he thought all of the time leading up to it they were in his corner...when he found out they are now actively trying to take him out, he got pissed.

I do wonder if he gets angry enough if he'll run third party just to screw with them.
 
It is interesting. I think he thought all of the time leading up to it they were in his corner...when he found out they are now actively trying to take him out, he got pissed.

I do wonder if he gets angry enough if he'll run third party just to screw with them.

1. I don't think Trump ever thought they would truly back him.

2. I don't think Trump's name will be on the ballot. At some point, Trump will play the "if I did, I would win" card - either regarding being the Republican or Independent, but he won't actually do it.

The newest poll to come out (conducted after the debate) shows Trump still unfazed as the clear #1 guy.

Will it last? I certainly don't think so. But the longer it plays out, the more entertaining things will be, that's for sure.
 
He wasn't "uninvited" because he wasn't "conservative" enough. He was uninvited because of comments he made about a woman - even though the host of the event has made equally disparaging comments.

The GOP is doing what it can to get rid of him, Fox News included. The Frank Luntz thing after the debate was laughable. They're trying their hardest. The funny thing is that Trump still acts like a moron and they can't get rid of him.

I am not going to disagree with that at all. I would just say that I was responding to a post that said he is the face of the Republican Party. Pointed out several reasons why he was/is not.
 
I am not going to disagree with that at all. I would just say that I was responding to a post that said he is the face of the Republican Party. Pointed out several reasons why he was/is not.

Polling doesn't count. Right?
 
Polling doesn't count. Right?

He is polling well, I can give you that. I think much of it is a response to this hyper politically correct world we are now in. I would also say that someone that is averaging 20-25% of the vote is hardly a face for anything. That leaves 75-80% still out there.
 
He is polling well, I can give you that. I think much of it is a response to this hyper politically correct world we are now in. I would also say that someone that is averaging 20-25% of the vote is hardly a face for anything. That leaves 75-80% still out there.

Whether he is polling well or not (and like you mention - polling the best right now means 1/4), he is still the focus of the Republican nomination battle.

The question is - how long will it last? It's lasted longer than many people thought it would. The problem is that he says a lot of stuff that sounds great - but a) isn't feasible b) isn't in reality c) is just patently false, etc. And quite frankly, his answers may sound good even though they aren't, but there's a lot of dumb people out there. His answers on bankruptcy was just that - he blamed it on his lenders and said you can't trust them and they're horrible people? Um, ok.
 
Whether he is polling well or not (and like you mention - polling the best right now means 1/4), he is still the focus of the Republican nomination battle.

The question is - how long will it last? It's lasted longer than many people thought it would. The problem is that he says a lot of stuff that sounds great - but a) isn't feasible b) isn't in reality c) is just patently false, etc. And quite frankly, his answers may sound good even though they aren't, but there's a lot of dumb people out there. His answers on bankruptcy was just that - he blamed it on his lenders and said you can't trust them and they're horrible people? Um, ok.

Unfortunately, overall he is the face of the election. IMO, not the face of what a conservative or Republican should be. I like the fact he is tough and aggressive. But really, you can be that and not be way over the top too. The one thing he has going for him is a lot of attention and free air time. I think it might be time to consider how beneficial that is. I think Rubio had it right today, or maybe yesterday when asked a question about Trump basically said I am not commenting on him anymore, that he was running his own campaign, and did not want to spend his campaign talking about other candidates. Others should take note IMO.

As for the bankruptcy comments, I did not have as much an issue, or interpret them like that. I thought that was Kelly going after him about declaring Bankruptcy a few times, Trump responded with something that he had done hundreds or thousands of good deals, employee a lot of people, and he said that the lenders were cut throat sharks. For me, I just interpreted it as business can get pretty ruthless, which it can.
 
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/

I really thought the Megyn Kelly comments would hurt him, but between this poll and the PPP poll, looks like not only did it not hurt him, he's actually rising (now at 32 percent nationally in the linked poll).

Wow. He's over 60% approval among Republican primary voters. I know, I know, he can't possibly last until the end of the process, but boy this isn't like the folks Noodle cited last time around anymore. And that's not a slam on Noodle, he could have very well been right, but Trump has maintained this lead for awhile now and through multiple crazy comments.
 
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/

I really thought the Megyn Kelly comments would hurt him, but between this poll and the PPP poll, looks like not only did it not hurt him, he's actually rising (now at 32 percent nationally in the linked poll).

Wow. He's over 60% approval among Republican primary voters. I know, I know, he can't possibly last until the end of the process, but boy this isn't like the folks Noodle cited last time around anymore. And that's not a slam on Noodle, he could have very well been right, but Trump has maintained this lead for awhile now and through multiple crazy comments.
Trump is so much like Bob Knight and no matter what Knight did his fans were just as supportive, if not more so after one of his fiasco's. There are a lot of people that like a know it all who can't be reigned in by anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue97
Trump is so much like Bob Knight and no matter what Knight did his fans were just as supportive, if not more so after one of his fiasco's. There are a lot of people that like a know it all who can't be reigned in by anyone.

The stakes are higher.

Republicans are choosing Trump as the representative of conservative values.

Your neighbors think, Republicans think, this man should be The President of the United States of America.
 
http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/

I really thought the Megyn Kelly comments would hurt him, but between this poll and the PPP poll, looks like not only did it not hurt him, he's actually rising (now at 32 percent nationally in the linked poll).

Wow. He's over 60% approval among Republican primary voters. I know, I know, he can't possibly last until the end of the process, but boy this isn't like the folks Noodle cited last time around anymore. And that's not a slam on Noodle, he could have very well been right, but Trump has maintained this lead for awhile now and through multiple crazy comments.

What PPP poll? The one I saw had Trump at 19%, and several others at around 10%. That would lead me to believe that while he is still leading, his support had eroded, and others(Fiorina/Carson/Bush) are holding steady or gaining ground.
 
What PPP poll? The one I saw had Trump at 19%, and several others at around 10%. That would lead me to believe that while he is still leading, his support had eroded, and others(Fiorina/Carson/Bush) are holding steady or gaining ground.

The one showing him leading by a lot in Iowa taken after the debate.
 
Whether he is polling well or not (and like you mention - polling the best right now means 1/4), he is still the focus of the Republican nomination battle.

The question is - how long will it last? It's lasted longer than many people thought it would. The problem is that he says a lot of stuff that sounds great - but a) isn't feasible b) isn't in reality c) is just patently false, etc. And quite frankly, his answers may sound good even though they aren't, but there's a lot of dumb people out there. His answers on bankruptcy was just that - he blamed it on his lenders and said you can't trust them and they're horrible people? Um, ok.

Trump said that we should bomb Iraq and take the oil.

Republicans are cheering it on. I heard it first hand on Hannity today.

He thinks a phone call will net a win. His geopolitical outlook is rivaled by that of a 4th grader. Bomb them and take their shit.

I'm actually scared that this may happen.

Another aside, the same Rs that screeched about Obama using an executive order now want Trump to issue multiples.
 
Trump said that we should bomb Iraq and take the oil.

Republicans are cheering it on. I heard it first hand on Hannity today.

He thinks a phone call will net a win. His geopolitical outlook is rivaled by that of a 4th grader. Bomb them and take their shit.

I'm actually scared that this may happen.

Another aside, the same Rs that screeched about Obama using an executive order now want Trump to issue multiples.

Like I said, there's a lot of dumb people out there.
 
Trump said that we should bomb Iraq and take the oil.

Republicans are cheering it on. I heard it first hand on Hannity today.

He thinks a phone call will net a win. His geopolitical outlook is rivaled by that of a 4th grader. Bomb them and take their shit.

I'm actually scared that this may happen.

Another aside, the same Rs that screeched about Obama using an executive order now want Trump to issue multiples.

Yeah, you might have just left out a bit of that story. In no way did he just say we should bomb Iraq and take their oil.

He was asked how he would deal with ISIS?(Changes the context of it all just a tad)

He then replied he would encircle them, supported troops on the ground, bomb them, and hit them hard where they control oil industry. Went on to say that is how they get a lot of their funding. He did say he would take that oil from them and use it for our country.

Well, argue the ethics of it all you want but I like the fact he actually has an idea for how to pay for the military action. Iraq needs serious help cleaning up their country again, the USA should not fit the bill militarily and monetarily IMO.

Anyway, hard to critique someone that actually has a plan for the ISIS issue in the ME. Every other candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, waffles around on the issue.

And this is coming from someone who has all but crossed Trump off the list of candidates I would vote for.
 
Trump is so much like Bob Knight and no matter what Knight did his fans were just as supportive, if not more so after one of his fiasco's. There are a lot of people that like a know it all who can't be reigned in by anyone.

Say what you want about Knight and Trump, but nobody will ever call them pussies.

When was the last time we had a president we could say the same for from either party?

Bill Clinton looks like a great compromise now from the last 2 presidents and the main democrat contender as of now....
 
Yeah, you might have just left out a bit of that story. In no way did he just say we should bomb Iraq and take their oil.

He was asked how he would deal with ISIS?(Changes the context of it all just a tad)

He then replied he would encircle them, supported troops on the ground, bomb them, and hit them hard where they control oil industry. Went on to say that is how they get a lot of their funding. He did say he would take that oil from them and use it for our country.

Well, argue the ethics of it all you want but I like the fact he actually has an idea for how to pay for the military action. Iraq needs serious help cleaning up their country again, the USA should not fit the bill militarily and monetarily IMO.

Anyway, hard to critique someone that actually has a plan for the ISIS issue in the ME. Every other candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, waffles around on the issue.

And this is coming from someone who has all but crossed Trump off the list of candidates I would vote for.

His idea of how to pay for it is to "take" Iraq's oil. Not bargain for it or ask Iraq to pay part of the costs, just take it.

Yeah, that's a great idea/precedent. And what if Iraq doesn't want us in their country? Too bad?
And yes, the American people are certainly going to be on board yet another long deployment to Iraq with ground troops for what should be a "quick" war...and we totally won't have to stay there forever.

What a plan.
 
His idea of how to pay for it is to "take" Iraq's oil. Not bargain for it or ask Iraq to pay part of the costs, just take it.

Yeah, that's a great idea/precedent. And what if Iraq doesn't want us in their country? Too bad?
And yes, the American people are certainly going to be on board yet another long deployment to Iraq with ground troops for what should be a "quick" war...and we totally won't have to stay there forever.

What a plan.

Is it better or worse than a plan of withdrawing U.S. troops and then creating a power vaccum that allows insurgent groups like ISIS to gain power and put us back to or worse than where we started? Hmmm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
Say what you want about Knight and Trump, but nobody will ever call them pussies.

When was the last time we had a president we could say the same for from either party?

Bill Clinton looks like a great compromise now from the last 2 presidents and the main democrat contender as of now....

What great leaders they would make - The might of their fear and gusto juxtaposed with a basal intellect, adept at applying simplistic strategies to a complex world.

Both Trump and Knight would be kingpins of a 5th grade playground, but what would they do when bullying failed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
Is it better or worse than a plan of withdrawing U.S. troops and then creating a power vaccum that allows insurgent groups like ISIS to gain power and put us back to or worse than where we started? Hmmm...

You know what created a power vacuum? Taking out Saddam. You know what guaranteed that Iraq would be aligned with Iran? Putting the Shia in charge.

So I take it your solution was to keep how many US troops there indefinitely? Do you think a few thousand trainers in Iraq would have stopped ISIS? Nothing short of surge numbers is going to take down ISIS. And after you take down ISIS (which was started by the same Sunni folks we "took down" during the surge), then another group pops up. So we stay to make sure they get taken down.

Sorry but setting up permanent shop in Iraq to try and stop the Sunni-Shia divide is one of the most asinine things one could do.
 
You know what created a power vacuum? Taking out Saddam. You know what guaranteed that Iraq would be aligned with Iran? Putting the Shia in charge.

So I take it your solution was to keep how many US troops there indefinitely? Do you think a few thousand trainers in Iraq would have stopped ISIS? Nothing short of surge numbers is going to take down ISIS. And after you take down ISIS (which was started by the same Sunni folks we "took down" during the surge), then another group pops up. So we stay to make sure they get taken down.

Sorry but setting up permanent shop in Iraq to try and stop the Sunni-Shia divide is one of the most asinine things one could do.
The sad thing is Saddam didn't have WMD which was our rationale for going into Iraq. To me this was our lowest point in American foreign policy history. I still have a hard time comprehending how wrong Bush and his team were regarding Iraq. History is not going to be very kind to Bush when they look back at his presidency.
 
The sad thing is Saddam didn't have WMD which was our rationale for going into Iraq. To me this was our lowest point in American foreign policy history. I still have a hard time comprehending how wrong Bush and his team were regarding Iraq. History is not going to be very kind to Bush when they look back at his presidency.

I don't think he cared about WMDs. I mean, I suspect he thought we'd find something that would justify things, but I don't think that was his primary purpose for going. I think he bought into the PNAC vision of "Americanizing" Iraq, gaining a strong ally in the region, getting cut-rate oil, putting the squeeze on Iran, and taking out the guy that "tried to kill his daddy." Don't disagree on possibly greatest foreign policy blunder part, but just don't think it was actually all that much about WMDs.
 
Yes, we should most definitely vote for the person least likely to be called a pussy. Brilliant! I want a meathead mentality for this country... Wooooooo! NASCAR!

As for Iraq, well, I think even Obama would tell you he didn't understand how the quick withdrawal would affect the country, which is exactly why we are still in Afghanistan and slowed the withdrawal there. I am sure we will be out by end of 2016 as he cares about his legacy, but his original vision was to be out of both much quicker. Then Iraq happened (which, by the way, I called a long time before it, and anyone with any experience whatsoever in that part of the world could've also predicted).
 
Yes, we should most definitely vote for the person least likely to be called a pussy. Brilliant! I want a meathead mentality for this country... Wooooooo! NASCAR!

As for Iraq, well, I think even Obama would tell you he didn't understand how the quick withdrawal would affect the country, which is exactly why we are still in Afghanistan and slowed the withdrawal there. I am sure we will be out by end of 2016 as he cares about his legacy, but his original vision was to be out of both much quicker. Then Iraq happened (which, by the way, I called a long time before it, and anyone with any experience whatsoever in that part of the world could've also predicted).

The sunni-shia issue was going to remain an issue whether we withdrew then, now or 100 years from now. ISIS would have formed regardless in some fashion. If not ISIS then some other group made up of Sunnis or Shias not in power somewhere who want to be in power somewhere.

The sooner we realize that the region simply is not going to be stablized by our interventions, the better for us. It's one thing to protect the flow of oil, I got it. (I'd prefer we switch to alternative fuels and make oil a dinosaur (no pun intended) but that appears to still be a few decades off). It's another thing to try and pacify the region. That's not going to happen because you have two groups with a millenia long "spat" that isn't going to be peacefully resolved anytime soon.
 
I don't think he cared about WMDs. I mean, I suspect he thought we'd find something that would justify things, but I don't think that was his primary purpose for going. I think he bought into the PNAC vision of "Americanizing" Iraq, gaining a strong ally in the region, getting cut-rate oil, putting the squeeze on Iran, and taking out the guy that "tried to kill his daddy." Don't disagree on possibly greatest foreign policy blunder part, but just don't think it was actually all that much about WMDs.
Bush was better in his 2nd term but Dick Chaney was formulating our foreign policy during Bush's 1st term.
The sunni-shia issue was going to remain an issue whether we withdrew then, now or 100 years from now. ISIS would have formed regardless in some fashion. If not ISIS then some other group made up of Sunnis or Shias not in power somewhere who want to be in power somewhere.

The sooner we realize that the region simply is not going to be stablized by our interventions, the better for us. It's one thing to protect the flow of oil, I got it. (I'd prefer we switch to alternative fuels and make oil a dinosaur (no pun intended) but that appears to still be a few decades off). It's another thing to try and pacify the region. That's not going to happen because you have two groups with a millenia long "spat" that isn't going to be peacefully resolved anytime soon.

1400 years or thereabout after Mohammeds death they are still fighting about who should have been his immediate successor, the source of the split between the 2 sides in the Muslim world and somehow I doubt that it gets settled now.
 
There's no way of knowing whether ISIS would form or not regardless. That's what you think, but it is not a factual statement. ISIS as it is today was formed due to a very specific set of circumstances enhanced by our withdrawal before Iraq was capable of suppressing it. Some organization like ISIS would have probably formed, but would they have declared a caliphate and swept across half of the country and captured major cities? Yeah probably not.

Otherwise, I agree in principle.
 
There's no way of knowing whether ISIS would form or not regardless. That's what you think, but it is not a factual statement. ISIS as it is today was formed due to a very specific set of circumstances enhanced by our withdrawal before Iraq was capable of suppressing it. Some organization like ISIS would have probably formed, but would they have declared a caliphate and swept across half of the country and captured major cities? Yeah probably not.

Otherwise, I agree in principle.

Who started ISIS? What disaffected group? What former group of military folks from Iraq advise ISIS? How did that group become disaffected in Iraq?
Yes they would have captured cities unless we had actual fighting brigades on the ground. Trainers and advisers are not actual fighting brigades.
No one was advising that we leave actual fighting brigades on the ground. No one.
 
Who started ISIS? What disaffected group? What former group of military folks from Iraq advise ISIS? How did that group become disaffected in Iraq?
Yes they would have captured cities unless we had actual fighting brigades on the ground. Trainers and advisers are not actual fighting brigades.
No one was advising that we leave actual fighting brigades on the ground. No one.
You can't prove any of that except to ask a bunch of BS questions to deflect the fact that you don't know either.
 
You can't prove any of that except to ask a bunch of BS questions to deflect the fact that you don't know either.

Wow...so you are saying you don't know that it was former military leaders under Saddam, Sunnis, who are helping ISIS now? Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...with-saddam-loyalists-in-bid-to-take-baghdad/
“As an effective fighting force alone, ISIS would never have been able to hold such large territories, a Kurdish intelligence officer told FoxNews.com but with the help of Baathists [united under the banner of the Naqshbandi army], they have been able to keep the momentum going.”
 
Who started ISIS? What disaffected group? What former group of military folks from Iraq advise ISIS? How did that group become disaffected in Iraq?
Yes they would have captured cities unless we had actual fighting brigades on the ground. Trainers and advisers are not actual fighting brigades.
No one was advising that we leave actual fighting brigades on the ground. No one.

Wow...so you are saying you don't know that it was former military leaders under Saddam, Sunnis, who are helping ISIS now? Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...with-saddam-loyalists-in-bid-to-take-baghdad/
“As an effective fighting force alone, ISIS would never have been able to hold such large territories, a Kurdish intelligence officer told FoxNews.com but with the help of Baathists [united under the banner of the Naqshbandi army], they have been able to keep the momentum going.”

Well, you are asking several different questions there, all of which have different or many answers. Read your two posts. You go from: Who started ISIS? What disaffected group? What former group of military folks from Iraq advise ISIS? How did that group become disaffected in Iraq? All the way too in response to Gr8:
Wow...so you are saying you don't know that it was former military leaders under Saddam, Sunnis, who are helping ISIS now? Really?

There is a big difference between who started it and who is helping them, and how much the aforementioned Iraq military leaders are needed, .

Al-Baghdadi, the self proclaimed caliphate was thought to be a revolutionary Isamic professor(sunni) well before ISIS started and some even think before he invasion. No one knows for certain. If the USA would have known more-they likely sent him to Gitmo rather than release him. Much of ISIS is made of Al Qaeda and fighters that came from al-Nusra, and ME/North Africa region recruits. Large foreign influence. But pretty much all the main players had ties to Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan mujahideen, Chechen fighters, and Syrian rebels. Al-Qaeda(mostly Sunni), Afghanistan mujahideen were around long before the US invaded Iraq. Not like the USA invasion created those groups.

Sure former Baath party and Iraq military officers(sunnis) are helping ISIL. However, they also have Afghanistan mujaideen that were trained by and fought against the USA, fighters from the Georgian Army(mainly Chechens) that were trained by you guessed it, the USA and Russia, and Syrian rebels who have been trained by the USA, UK, and Russia(when they were part of Syrian Army).

So the answer in short to all your questions/claims would be nobody really knows for certain how it started, or would it have started. But as of now from reports on the ground it is pretty obvious that there is enough well trained military leadership with a vast background in training and philosophies to be good in battle without any former Iraqi officers.

And that is just the tip of the ice burg. Anyway, a big stretch to go from who started it to who is helping them. When you stated that Gr8 did not know it was former military leaders under Saddam Sunnis, who are helping ISIS, you seemed to imply that they needed that help to be successful or exist. Not the case. I mentioned all the foreign fighters and foreign training they had. I am sure they like the former Baath military officers-not needed though. It is a tough group, and SF guys on the ground there all say in every location they have their act together.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT